Bruckner: Symphony No.3 (1873 version)
Thomas Dausgaard / Bergen Philharmonic (BIS)
(scroll down for English review)
這個布魯克納《第三交響曲》新錄音，要在封面強調是「1873年原版」是有道理。布魯克納第三雖然不是最入屋的布魯克納，但仍有不少指揮及聽眾喜歡，錄音其實很多，不過它大抵有三個版本（樂譜版本），錄得最多的是最後的1889年版本、1877年版本次之，而最初的1873年版本雖然最能反映布魯克納最率性的創意，卻是最少人錄，但近年愈來愈多指揮選用。
但我介紹這個錄音，不是純粹因為是初版，而是以1873版本的錄音來說是很特出。《第三交響曲》應該是布魯克納改得最多次、最令他放心不下的交響曲，簡單來說，三個版本是愈改愈短，亦即是1873版最長。不過吊詭的是，道斯加特這個錄音幾乎是同版的最快，57分鐘的長度，往往是其他指揮演奏最短的1889版本的時間，也比大部分1873版本的錄音快十分鐘。
我覺得道斯加特不只是快，而是他不執着於營造莊嚴的感覺，寧願音樂向前流動。用技術的角度來看，快是因為他在第一及四樂章都遵照2/2的節奏指示，數快的兩拍。2/2還是4/4從來都是演奏布魯克納的灰色地帶，很難有結論，例如《第七交響曲》第一樂章也是2/2，但真的用快的兩拍又會很匆忙，不過像柴利比達克用稍慢的四拍又可能太蝸牛，即使那是很多人喜歡他、覺得他很神的原因。
布魯克納愈改愈短，當然有其原因，至少沒那麼重覆長氣，但道斯加特這種速度，卻又令我感覺沒那麼長氣，更能欣賞這個版本一大優點：和聲更為大膽、高潮更為撕裂。布魯克納用四年時間便寫了第二至五交響曲的初版，那時布拉姆斯尚未發表《第一交響曲》。這未必有因果關係，但布魯克納就愈來愈思前想後，愈寫愈慢，往後廿年也只是寫了四首，《第九交響曲》更是未完成。
I think it was really necessary to put the “original 1873 version” on the disc cover as Bruckner 3 was frequently recorded. Out of the three authoritative versions the 1889 final version was the most popular, followed by the 1877 version. But the longest and the most daring 1873 version is gradually catching up.
I didn’t review this Dausgaard recording simply because it used the 1873 version, but that it was an extraordinary reading of this version. Despite using the longest version, Dausgaard only took 57 minutes, the time that some conductors took for conducting the 1889 version. This Dausgaard interpretation was also about 10 minutes shorter than the average 1873 version recording.
I think Dausgaard didn’t just make it fast, but that he kept the music flowing and preferred not to present a typically “Brucknerian” solemn interpretation. Technically speaking he conducted the outer movements alla breve (2/2) just as Bruckner marked it. I’m aware of the fact that the choice of 2/2 or 4/4 is a debatable issue in Bruckner interpretations. The first movement of the Seventh Symphony is also in 2/2 but if it is played in a fast two it’d definitely sound rushed. Celibidache’s ultra-slow Seventh Symphony was based on taking the 2/2 as a moderately paced 4/4, to me that sounded too sluggish but many savoured the aura and I used to love it too.
Bruckner had his reason to chop off bars after bars, for the latter versions do sound less repetitive. But at Dausgaard’s tempi this longest version no longer sounded long-winded and the charms of Bruckner’s original vision came to light: daring harmonies, shattering climaxes. In four years Bruckner completed the first drafts of the Second to Fifth Symphonies, when Brahms had yet to unveil his First Symphony. But after that, I’m not suggesting a causal relationship though, Bruckner only wrote four symphonies in the next 20 years, leaving the Ninth unfinished.